A United Airlines flight en route to Newark from Houston Tuesday morning was forced to make an emergency landing in New Orleans because of a mechanical issue with the plane, a brand-new 787 Dreamliner. (www.seattlepi.com) 更多...

I was on an A319 January 2011 from Chicago to PDX and we had to land in Omaha due to electrical and hydraulic issues. Another A319 picked us up and flew us on to PDX. We were on the ground long enough for me to get down 3 double Makers on the rocks. Neither the mechanical issue or my consumption of bourbon made the news.

John Ostrower of the Wall Street Journal is reporting via Twitter: "Diverted United 787 radioed fire crews at MSY to look signs of damage to the aircraft near the jet's aft electrical equipment bay" and "The 787's aft electrical bay is home to the jet's electrical power distribution, guiding power from its engines & APU." and "In Nov. 2010, Boeing suffered an in-flight fire in the same electrical bay while on approach to Laredo, Tx, during a test flight."

There was no fire or indication there of on the exterior of the plane. We won't know for sure why they declared an emergency until the NTSB report. This plane was delivered earlier in the week and put right into to service without any test flights by United.

Something failed or indicated a failure on the flight deck. This is a new aircraft with inexperienced crews. The proper thing to do is not to second guess the computers you put the plane on the ground and let maintenance take a look. I believe this is what the crews did and what United has done. According to flight tracker the plane is still at MSY.

This could be real simple issue and maybe nothing that is safety related. In Canada yesterday had a diversion because the FMS failed in flight. The Canadian Controls diverted him. He Diverted 20 minutes off course, and was only 30 minutes from his destination.

This issue could be as simple as an indication and the crew played it safe to have things checked out... Even though they are fully trained, there is always something new... Especially in a new plane. This article in my opinion is to vague and doesn't say nothing meaningful. They just want to publish meaningless dirt.

Listen to tower conversation on ATC Live. Pilots concerned with what seemed to be an electrical issue in the baggage area behind the wing root. Asked Fire Rescue to inspect the aircraft just behind the wing in the area of the fuselage where there is primarily electrical connections.

Later the FAA posted a immediate airworthiness directive to inspect and repair a fuel line connection in the engine Nacelle that may have not been connect properly at the factory. Do not know if the two are connected.

They said somewhere that Nippon and some of the rest had had minor problems. The only reason we heard about this on is because it's high profile and they are the first domestic carrier. Besides the training, I am sure this is another reason to keep it home for awhile. This ain't United's first rodeo with a new plane.

Tell you what W the Japanese engineers are the best on the planet. The Lufthansa crew are good but at times they have to fight like hell with MBAs for the odd penny here and there. The big problem is the damned paper work in Japanese.

There was a near catastrophy early on with an A380 when an engine came apart in mid-flight and seriously damaged the plane itself. And later they found a substantial issue with improper materials selected for the wing structure that had to be corrected on aircraft in service as well as new builds. End result was that passengers paid no attention and 380s still sold prety well.

Below here there is a link from Bill Harris. I think I read that link and it says something about one of the generators; supposedly minor but somebody said it was still on the ground at MSY so I dunno.

In the meantime, I'll enjoy the ANA 787 as it flies over my home on it's approach to KSEA around 9am. I picked up this morning's flight as she was off the BC coast at 390 flying a little over 560. She's a beauty.

Well , now comes the news of the faulty fuel lines, so how long are we going to survive on optimism and not look at it as a potential problem on hand , which needs good, qualified attention. Trust the "growing pains" do not turn into endless nightmares !!

Seems like this sort of thing always happens with new airliners. It takes a lot to make flight of any machine a reality. As far as PR goes, I wonder if the passengers where doused in the new airliner fanfare. It doesn't make well to brag about a new product if an emergency landing takes place, regardless of the reason. It isn't the first 787 emergency and it won't be the last, and the same goes for every other aircraft out there that had it's up's and down's early on.

You know that and we all know that but as you say, try explaining it to a pax. I lost an engine on t/o once on a 757 after the bird had been in the hangar for a week getting a good going over. Something totally simple and that actually had been looked over while down but it failed under power. Stuff will break. I really hope that they don't find anything serious on that generator. Of course, the 787, being the new kid on the block, is under the microscope and we will hear about every little ache and pain until something else comes along to take the limelight.

As a retired US Navy diesel-electric submarine Engineer Officer who took USS RAZORBACK (SS-394) through an extensive 5-month long shipyard overhaul, I can share this bit of acquired wisdom:

When we entered the shipyard for overhaul WE KNEW WHAT WAS WRONG with the boat (in RAZORBACK's case it was almost everything.)

When we completed the overhaul, WE WEREN'T SURE.

It turned out there wasn't much wrong. Thanks to our ship's company's knowledgeable, conscientious supervision we were able to find and have corrected some serious potential problems -- before we signed off on the shipyard's work. I probably wouldn't have been around to write this if we'd undocked without making a detailed inspection of the interior of every ballast tank.

The reason why you aren't sure when you leave is that with so much work being done by individuals who're skilled at their trade, but are nonetheless are human and fallible, mistakes get made. The shipyard workers can tell you in good faith a job has been completed properly -- and almost all are. But as President Reagan so wisely said: "TRUST, BUT VERIFY".

To be honest, I didn't even read the article. The 787 had an in-flight fire (or "heat-up") whatever you want to call it, a motor shaft failure, and I don't even really care what this is all about. All these failures are well within(usually) the machine's safety factor and are typical of anything flying today. I'm not a pilot, but how do you deal with that passenger who gets so upset over these things without any knowledge of meteorology, structural mechanics, fluid dynamics, physiology, and aircraft financing? It takes a lot to make a plane fly, let alone get you there on time and even if it's 5 hours late, it sure beats driving. The press loves these incidents and so do the Airbus vs. Boeing people. For those of us who make it all happen, it's just another day.

I saw it too. It wasn't on here but a separate post somewhere. Boeing or a customer had found it; said IMPROPER INSTALLATION, and had been corrected; ANA and some of the others had already found/fixed it. Only 1/2 dozen or so planes and they were identified.

The news about snags in the new Dreamliner is coming a bit more than anticipated , of any new flying machine. It would be in the interest of the common traveller , if Boeing issues a public notification assuring them , that the plane is absolutely safe. I think it is their moral responsibility .

it's going to end up being something small like an under lubercated slide and because of all the fuss, everyone is going to have less confidence in the aircraft, especially because it is a new aircraft. Also, why was that large plane flying a small route. I know that it was between two hubs, but i expecrted a transcontinental or trans atlantic routes from it.

Yes, I heard that, too. Right now ship 904 has a 3.5hr delay IAH-EWR and 902 still grounded. I'm scheduled on the 788 next Friday, paid a premium for that, so I would be extremely disappointed if there was a sub!

A United Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner scheduled to fly from Houston Bush (IAH) to Newark International (EWR) this morning diverted for an emergency landing at New Orleans (MSY) due to an undisclosed technical problem.

United Flight 1146, with 174 passengers and 10 crew, landed without incident at New Orleans at 9:25 AM.

‘As per standard procedure when an emergency is declared, fire trucks met the airplane as it landed.

The airline was putting passengers on a different aircraft to get them to Newark.

The cause was not immediately disclosed.

“United will work with Boeing to review the diversion and determine the cause,” airline spokeswoman Christen David said in a statement.’

The plane is the newest of three Boeing 787s that have been delivered to United. This particular plane was delivered on November 20th.

A United Airlines flight en route to Newark from Houston Tuesday morning was forced to make an emergency landing in New Orleans because of a mechanical issue with the plane, a brand-new 787 Dreamliner.